Re: Refactoring the checkpointer's fsync request queue

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Shawn Debnath <sdn(at)amazon(dot)com>, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Refactoring the checkpointer's fsync request queue
Date: 2018-11-13 18:01:14
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Lists: pgsql-hackers


On 2018-11-12 15:58:41 +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
> There is one major problem with this patch: BufferSync(), run in the
> checkpointer, can deadlock against a backend that holds a buffer lock
> and is blocked in SendFsyncRequest(). To break this deadlock, we need
> way out of it on either the sending or receiving side. Here are three
> ideas:

That's the deadlock I'd mentioned in Pune (?) btw.

> 1. Go back to the current pressure-valve strategy: make the sending
> side perform the fsync(), if it can't immediately write to the pipe.

I don't think that's correct / safe? I've previously wondered whether
there's any way we could delay the write to a point where the buffer is
not locked anymore - as far as I can tell it's actually not required for
correctness that we send the fsync request before unlocking. It's
architecturally a bit dicey tho :(


Andres Freund

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2018-11-13 18:07:05 Re: Refactoring the checkpointer's fsync request queue
Previous Message Jean-Christophe Arnu 2018-11-13 17:53:06 Re: wal_dump output on CREATE DATABASE